The paper by Wells and colleagues on newspaper reporting of screening mammography 32 was clearly biased and thus bad science. The authors criticize the sources the newspapers used, but are we to assume that the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, radiologists, the National Institutes of Health, and data presented at medical conferences are all unreliable and biased? Are they duping the U.S. public into performing mammography on women 40 to 49 years of age for some purpose other than to protect their welfare? If that were the case, would these people and institutions perhaps not go further and advise women in their 30s to get mammography, given that some cases do present in this age range?